This text appeared at a Usenet group of Cambridge University
| From: D.A. Galletly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | Subject: Re: Cambridge election results | View: Complete Thread (83 articles) | Original Format | Newsgroups: cam.misc | Date: 2003-05-03 07:22:26 PST | | | In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, | Ben Hutchings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | >Condorcet rules for selection for a single post. But you probably | >already knew that. | | Condorcet plus Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping, yes. As I said | in my speech. | -- | + Diana Galletly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> + | + http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly/ + | + NEW: Sign up for a Poldovian T-shirt today ! + | + http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly/poldovia.html + | The author, Ms Galletly (of this mailing list, formerly), seems to have some confidence in the AD 2003 Voting Matters of Mr Marcus Schulze. The text above does not mention that the article attempted to say that the method of Mr M. Schulze, was monotonic. I expect that Ms Galletly would pull the plug on her "yes" message that could be read as implying some trust in the articles of Mr SChulze. The article is here: edition 17: http://www.mcdougall.org.uk/VM/MAIN.HTM Condorcet is not monotonic. I argue for that result below. Also Condorcet will make a candidate with under 1% of the vote, be a winner, when there are 3 candidates. The Alternative Vote, will do the same, and be seemingly wrong in doing so, but maybe 9 candidates is the smallest number of candidates that allows that problem to be demonstrated. For the STV community, it is never accepted that a public will prefer A over C, if both preferring A over B, and B over C. Instead the ballot paper (AC) is simply itself. If it is not a sincere paper then MR OSSIPOFF might be making some statements on the importance of things being what "YOU" want: the audience failed to get the mistakes out. In addition to implying that must or else not understand, he occasionally says that the slightest change would be something different. Mr OSSIPOFF said in an e-mail that he had stopped doing research. I never actually saw an e-mail saying that he had resumed doing research. If he wants a modified Nelder-Mead optimizer that fits a mid-way plane and that is better at optimizing Boolean barrier nonlinear optimization problems then he can e-mail me. Let me get two fundamental core beliefs of the pairwise comparing devotees, who apparently try to censor out the two matters (perhaps to drop Americans into lies and not provide clues on how to get out). It would be great to get a long sequence of explanations from Mr Heitzig ending with some comment that is both good and enduring. I guess our incompetents believe that candidate B can start losing when the "A over B" number (or Mr Schulze's paper) gets bigger. Much over 1/2 of all the subtotals measuring the strengths of the graph's arrows, should never change sign as their terms are changed. There is no principle in saying that candidate B is harmed equally by (AB) and (AC). Anyone in England would possibly insist on having candidates be helped by papers that (positively) name them. It is not so in the lies of the Condorcet world. I saw the paper of Mr Steve Eppley imply the show-stopping moronic problems using very obscure wording inside of parentheses. That was that paper that Mr Eppley co-authored with D. G. Saari. To get it wrong implies a low intelligence and to remain in the wrong for every 5 year interval, could indicate inappropriate stubbornness. Also there is no use of logic, and no use of geometry and symbols, and a total rejection of the idea of fairness and perhaps that is how 2 Germans can never get around to saying that preferring numbers over optimizers and symbolic algebra, creates an (obvious) problem of implicitness preventing the solving of the equations. This could be a list that survives from month to month, or until Adam Tarr lets us know that he concluded something. (Why not 20,000 statements? : the Catholic catechism of the Pope) Also, suppose that the ballot papers are all these papers: a0 * (A) + ab * (AB) + ac * (AC) + and other papers. Then increasing the "ab" Real number will tend to cause B to lose since appearing with a positive weight in the Heitzig-ian "A over B" total. There is so far very little chance that ideas from Mr Heitzig and Schulze could be true. Next I expect to get no comments from Mr Heitzig or Mr Shulze. Things were really bad with Mr Schulze's replies in the last year: claiming to not understand his own topic that I wrote on, when the topic is too simple for that to seem bona fide. So it is just shown that all Condorcet variants will be failed by the rule of monotonicity. Mr Schulze has unfollowable arguments and doubtless was unprotected against this type of mistake: After reading MIKE OSSIPOFF, Mr Shulze might have formed a view that pairwise comparing variants contain "for loops". In a write-up, subscripts of superscripts would tend to occur. It is all on track to hiding the method's failures under monotonicity, inside of the (n-1)-dimensional cuts between the cases. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Persons that use my axioms would be able to say this: [Overview of upheld Fairness Principle] (1) Everyone else's ballot papers have a power under 1. (2) My ballot paper has a power that is always 0 or more. (3) On noting these were rules that check other rules, then I can make use of that and then I have a right to reject lies and untrue teachings of other teachers, including teachers of pairwise comparing mistakes. Suppose that Mr Jobst Heitzig is a economist and a teacher. Suppose MIKE OSSIPOFF flipped and became a student of JOBST. Suppose that in 2015, Adam Tarr goofed up and finally succeeded in writing down a clarification of MIKE's FBC. Unlike people that accept fairness, the students of Mr Heitzig lack the moral core that allows them to defend the Heitzig wrong faith. I could never say that Mr Heitzig is a mathematician: he defends the personal ideal of having the wrong winner. What the 2 Germans have got on offer is desire that has trashed their private thinking even before their first appearance. If I am reading this list right, the 2 men in Germany believe that they should not use desire instead of reasoning, inside of the topic of preferential voting. One problem with authors privately replacing fairness with desire is that Mr Lanphier's success could be tripled and the mailing list could get 20,000 more e-mails without a mentionable amount of academic progress. The mailing list is apparently running satisfactorily in the mind of Mr Robert Lanphier. As far as I am aware, any actuio he would take would be an action to make the mailing list worse, and he understands the American stance regarding truth versus volume. I recently saw Mr Rob Richie experimenting with the name "RCV" (a new name for the Alternative Vote, and the name that San Francisco city chose. Former CVD member MIKE of hotmail.com might need to switch off the city lights on his "IRV" name and start to adapt. Oh, MIKE was settling in to using an invalid argument to criticise the Alternative Vote. MIKE is the man who tells "you" that "you" got it wrong if "you" think that the "favorite" is the first preference. Much dumber than having the "favorite" be the second preference candidate, is following after Shulze and making the candidate that is blessed with a rise to its subtotal, being not even named. I can try this: in the more intelligent Commonwealth, no candidate is helped or harmed when not actually even named. However this list is sort of useless: a while back Approval enthusiasts tried to dominate it but maybe their topic is just too dull for them to retain an interest. I need to keep lucid comments on the algebra of fairness, confined to my own mailing lists, e.g. the single-transferable-vote mailing list. Unfortunately the theme of doing research seems to be a powerful repellent to American university students. I suppose Jobst Heitzig wont want to explain why he makes his mistakes at the start and is stuck there and upholding the idea of making mistakes far too early. We could have all the rights be bones in a backbone, and the Germans could be refusing to cooperate in the police investigations on who gunned down the X-ray technicians. This woman has online X-rays of an organ that is not a German government offical's first organ of reasoning: http://www2.georginaverbaan.nl/index.html Breast uncovered I see that DW TV periodically has articles on searching for new spouses. Since not getting principles on how to be fair to individuals, maybe Jobst could free up some knowledge on how to pick a partner. Some Christians believe that children get taught worthless or wrong material and then it has to be redone because the first teachings were simply not good enough (German bible schools). Craig Carey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Auckland, New Zealand Nullo metro compositum est (trans. It doesn't rhyme) ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info